History of Rheology Sample Clauses

History of Rheology. Scientists have studied fluids for a long time, reaching as far back as antiquity. Proba- xxx the earliest application of viscosity effects was performed around 1600 BCE by the Egyptian scientist Amenemhet, who made a correction to the drainage angle of a wa- ter clock to account for the viscosity change of water as the temperature changes [19]. In 1687, Xxxxx Xxxxxx stated a famous definition of the resistance of ideal fluids (now called viscosity): “The resistance which arises from the lack of slipperiness originating in a fluid – other things being equal – is proportional to the velocity by which the parts of the fluid are separated from each other” [67]. Xxxxxx characterized the class of fluids we now call Newtonian. The study of fluids, however, has not been a separate discipline until the early twentieth century. In 1924, a Plasticity Symposium (for the study of viscosity) was held at Lafayette College, Pennsylvania. Due to a high level of interest in the subject, the symposium was held several times in the following years. During the third symposium, in 1929, Xxxxxx X. Xxxxxxx and Xxxxxx Xxxxxx (both Lafayette College) suggested the creation of a dedicated discipline for the “study of the flow and the deformation of all forms of matter”, and suggested calling it “rhe- ology”. A committee, which included Xxxxxxx X. Xxxxxxxx, met on April 29th 1929 and decided to follow their suggestion. It was that same day that the field of rheol- ogy was coined [37]. The class of visco-plastic materials had still not received much attention during that time, and this did not change for the next few decades, until the early eighties. In 1983, a review by Bird et al. [23] appeared providing a list of several materials exhibiting a yield, making the scientific community more aware of the widespread presence of visco-plastic materials – and their potential applications. Since the appearance of this article, the interest in visco-plastic materials slowly in- creased and researchers started to study them more thoroughly. Attempts were made to model and simulate their flow. However, measuring the yield stress and finding the unyielded regions were still unresolved problems. At the same time, some researchers questioned the existence of visco-plasticity. Xxxxxx and Xxxxxxx [9] stated that if a material flows at high stresses it would also flow for low stresses, even though very slowly. This was however quickly disputed by many [7, 53, 88]. The appearance of the modificatio...
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs

Related to History of Rheology

  • PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT AND EDUCATIONAL IMPROVEMENT A. The Board agrees to implement the following:

  • Anti-Doping I understand and agree that the UCI Anti-Doping Rules and U.S. Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) Protocol apply to me. I agree to submit to drug testing. If it is determined I may have committed an anti-doping rule violation, I agree to submit to the results management authority and processes of USADA or the results management authority of the UCI and my national federation. I agree that arbitration is my exclusive remedy under the above rules.

  • Introduction and Background 1.1 The purpose of this Schedule 2 (Contract Services and Contract Supplies) is to set out the characteristics of the Contract Services and/or Contract Supplies (as the case may be) and Funding that the Provider will be required to make available to all Contracting Authorities in relation to Lot 1 and/or Lot 2 (as the case may be) and to provide a description of what the Contract Services and/or Contract Supplies (as the case may be) and Funding will entail.

  • Quality Monitoring 4.2.1. To prepare a Quality Assurance (QA) Plan

  • Background and/or Criminal History Investigation Prior to commencement of any services, background and/or criminal history investigation of the Vendor’s employees and subcontractors who will be providing services to the Customer under the Contract may be performed by the Customer. Should any employee or subcontractor of the Vendor who will be providing services to the Customer under the Contract not be acceptable to the Customer as a result of the background and/or criminal history check, then Customer may immediately terminate its Purchase Order and related Service Agreement or request replacement of the employee or subcontractor in question.

  • Alignment with Modernization Foundational Programs and Foundational Capabilities The activities and services that the LPHA has agreed to deliver under this Program Element align with Foundational Programs and Foundational Capabilities and the public health accountability metrics (if applicable), as follows (see Oregon’s Public Health Modernization Manual, (xxxx://xxx.xxxxxx.xxx/oha/PH/ABOUT/TASKFORCE/Documents/public_health_modernization_man ual.pdf):

  • Professional Engineering and Architect’s Services Professional Engineering and Architect’s Services are not permitted to be provided under this Agreement. Texas statutes prohibit the procurement of Professional Engineering and Architect’s Services through a cooperative agreement.

  • Contractor Certification regarding Boycotting Israel Pursuant to Chapter 2270, Texas Government Code, Contractor certifies Contractor (1) does not currently boycott Israel; and (2) will not boycott Israel during the Term of this Agreement. Contractor acknowledges this Agreement may be terminated and payment withheld if this certification is inaccurate.

  • BACKGROUND AND INTRODUCTION The Federal-aid Highway Program (FAHP) is a federally-assisted program of State-selected projects. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the State Departments of Transportation have long worked as partners to deliver the FAHP in accordance with Federal requirements. In enacting 23 U.S.C. 106(c), as amended, Congress recognized the need to give the States more authority to carry out project responsibilities traditionally handled by FHWA. Congress also recognized the importance of a risk-based approach to FHWA oversight of the FAHP, establishing requirements in 23 U.S.C. 106(g). This Stewardship and Oversight (S&O) Agreement sets forth the agreement between the FHWA and the State of Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) on the roles and responsibilities of the FHWA and the State DOT with respect to Title 23 project approvals and related responsibilities, and FAHP oversight activities. The scope of FHWA responsibilities, and the legal authority for State DOT assumption of FHWA responsibilities, developed over time. The U.S. Secretary of Transportation delegated responsibility to the Administrator of the FHWA for the FAHP under Title 23 of the United States Code, and associated laws. (49 CFR 1.84 and 1.85) The following legislation further outlines FHWA’s responsibilities: • Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) of 1991; • Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) of 1998; • Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) of 2005; and • Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21) of 2012 (P.L. 112-141). The FHWA may not assign or delegate its decision-making authority to a State Department of Transportation unless authorized by law. Xxxxxxx 000 xx Xxxxx 00, Xxxxxx Xxxxxx Code (Section 106), authorizes the State to assume specific project approvals. For projects that receive funding under Title 23, U.S.C., and are on the National Highway System (NHS) including projects on the Interstate System, the State may assume the responsibilities of the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Transportation under Title 23 for design, plans, specifications, estimates, contract awards, and inspections with respect to the projects unless the Secretary determines that the assumption is not appropriate. (23 U.S.C. 106(c)(1)) For projects under Title 23, U.S.C. that are not on the NHS, the State shall assume the responsibilities for design, plans, specifications, estimates, contract awards, and inspections unless the State determines that such assumption is not appropriate. (23 U.S.C. 106(c)(2)) For all other project activities which do not fall within the specific project approvals listed in Section 106 or are not otherwise authorized by law, the FHWA may authorize a State DOT to perform work needed to reach the FHWA decision point, or to implement FHWA’s decision. However such decisions themselves are reserved to FHWA. The authority given to the State DOT under Section 106(c)(1) and (2) is limited to specific project approvals listed herein. Nothing listed herein is intended to include assumption of FHWA’s decision-making authority regarding Title 23, U.S.C. eligibility or Federal-aid participation determinations. The FHWA always must make the final eligibility and participation decisions for the Federal-aid Highway Program. Section 106(c)(3) requires FHWA and the State DOT to enter into an agreement relating to the extent to which the State DOT assumes project responsibilities. This Stewardship and Oversight Agreement (S&O Agreement), includes information on specific project approvals and related responsibilities, and provides the requirements for FHWA oversight of the FAHP (Oversight Program), as required by 23 U.S.C. 106(g).

  • Anti-Boycott Verification To the extent this Agreement constitutes a contract for goods or services within the meaning of Section 2270.002 of the Texas Government Code, as amended, solely for purposes of compliance with Chapter 2270 of the Texas Government Code, and subject to applicable Federal law, the Developer represents that neither the Developer nor any wholly owned subsidiary, majority-owned subsidiary, parent company or affiliate of Developer (i) boycotts Israel or (ii) will boycott Israel through the term of this Agreement. The terms “boycotts Israel” and “boycott Israel” as used in this paragraph have the meanings assigned to the term “boycott Israel” in Section 808.001 of the Texas Government Code, as amended.

Time is Money Join Law Insider Premium to draft better contracts faster.